Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The initial question is whether the Examiner has advanced acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement such that the Examiner’s burden of proof is met. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to Appellant to show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have practiced the claimed invention without undue experimentation.Id.